No ISS after 2024? not in the interests of commercial crew and cargo, what to do?

April 3, 2017

No ISS after 2024? not in the interests of commercial crew and cargo, what to do?No ISS after 2024? not in the interests of commercial crew and cargo, what to do?

Extend to 2028 is really what we want even if it comes out of SLS cargoes beyond LEO budgets, WHY? SpaceX is spending capital gained from government and commercial launch of its Mars project.The rest of us should do something similar in the interests of individual projects.No ISS beyond 2024 gores the Ox of Sierra Nevada the most I think to do to it’s not being a candidate for Cislunar.So it’s Sierra Nevada that gains the most in joining in with a ULA propellant tank space station deployment.ULA, of course, loses out it Dream Chaser comes to an end or is curtailed.

This line of argument means we sell the Sierra Nevada on funding, loaning, transaction owning and then selling an interest in the Propellant tank derived space station to the transaction is tax-free to the seller to the ESOP shares.If Sierra Nevada manufacturers equipment in a cash-free transaction to the Space station and later sells that contribution to the ESOP this might work as well.

Its in the interests of ULA to further the goals of Dream Chaser beyond 2024/28

Starliner is not a vehicle immeadetly intended for beyond LEO to Cis lunar so Boeing and ULA are best served with a back up to an early ISS deorbit. Likewise, Bigelow may or may not be ready and/or Bigalow might need a backup to its ECLASS and propulsion by docking to another space station.Indeed a Bigalow without ECLASS and its own propulsion could be docked.So it might very be in Bigelow’s interests to partner with another docking port provider.We could very well propose that the ESOP has purchased from partnership shares in ownership of both ULA and Bigalow.Or Bigalow rents docking space as per my original idea.

Bigalow might be one a transitional part owner in the ULA station as well as contributing its inflatables.

It might be in our interests for the ESOP to purchase Starliner flights and resale them to customers(tax reasons?)also if the ESOP owns the Starliner that revenue is tax-free (ESOP is a pension plan)Possibly the ESOP purchase Dream Chasers to bring their future revenues tax-free, under ERISA this means the astronauts are the employee owners of this project(plus support staff and my manufacturing worker proposal) At one time a pilot ESOP-owned United Airlines that ended unhappily a cautionary tale.

orbital ATK might lose out to an early end to ISS so it to could have an interest in funding or partner with a large Propellant tank derived space station.

We can rent docking space to those entity’s that would own the modules removed from the ISS

Possibly the ESOP also owns the launch site flare gas cogeneration sites as suggested in prior posts.

ESOP’s may be S Corporation partners so ULA, Orbital, Sierra Nevada, Boeing and terrestrial & cislunar technologies and the ESOP all could be S corporation partners as well as subcontractors who have non-cash equipment contributions (solar arrays,nanoracks,post ISS module owners?)